2012 Japan sales of mirrorless & SLRs

ElJamoquio · 05-17-2013, 02:58 PM

Originally posted by Pål Jensen

Surely you are joking....

Nope. The native-q lenses are great, don't get me wrong. When I put on the 300mm or so I have better luck cropping.

I've only done a tiny amount of macro stuff.

**monochrome** · 05-17-2013, 02:59 PM

Originally posted by Pål Jensen

The examples above is more than good enough for A3+ prints.
If you click on the images they'll get significantly larger than A3 on your monitor. You can hang these on your wall with no problems. Pity they don't have more DOF though...

But - see - that doesn't matter - because, like, the 1" sensor image is EVEN BETTER than good-enough-to-hang-on-your-wall - and, like, that's all people care about, and like, DOF!!.

Pentax is doomed.

Again.

Damn.

IchabodCrane · 05-17-2013, 03:13 PM

Originally posted by Pål Jensen

The Q have about the same share of the mirrorless market as the total share of FF (Nikon + Canon and Sony) have of the DSLR market. That should put things into perspective.

Have 6% share of the market with one model is nothing short of remarkable...

Here's some more perspective.... it's been claimed on this forum that the DSLR market is four to five times the size of the MILC market.

**Aristophanes** · 05-17-2013, 03:54 PM

Originally posted by Kunzite

More than adequate for web (and small prints). I guess 90% of all the photos taken are printed A3+ or larger...

Does that matter?

People buy the most spec for the price. Q is under-spec by a significant amount compared to the competition. CX sensors in the same form factor will beat it into the ground. It's not even analogous to m43 vs APS, either. The Q sensor is that much smaller than what the competition is doing. And the reviews.....mostly suck, with the small sensor being the small point. It's like a minivan that only seats 4; or a truck that cannot tow due to too small an engine. It's a sensor that cannot do what the competition can in low light, which is a far more important criteria than a little more telecentricity.

The Q original has ben on a fire sale, which is NOT a good sign. Amazon's user reviews for the Q series in total is almost nil, as in 20 feedback buyers. The newer Q10 has zero reviews. Nikon's J series has hundreds and the Sony RX100 ell over 300 reviews. Again, a later release than the Q system. A quick survey of Canadian retailers show that only about half the main players carry the line.

I don't see sales, not from North American outlets. It's almost invisible.

Flickr doesn't even track the Q in Camera Finder because it has no statistical volume. The Nikon 1 Series already has 2 million uploads and is a year younger than the Q (the D90 tops out at 104 million uploads for comparison).

And you think the competition is going to stand still? They're going to drop their CX prices (the J1 is already selling more units a a lower price than the Q).

A very basic, retail level market analysis says the Q is not a player in the consumer mindset. 5.8% in Japan's flaky MILC market and I bet 0.1% in North America's equivalent. I give the system maybe 2 years. Regardless, Pentax will have no choice but to offer a larger sensor compact either MILC or compact before then.

RonHendriks1966 · 05-17-2013, 04:01 PM

Originally posted by Pål Jensen

Have 6% share of the market with one model is nothing short of remarkable...

I think that no matter how someone feels about the Q, this is a good achievement. It would be great if Pentax also had a dslr camera model that would get this same marketshare in the dslr-section. People buy for their own reasons. I wouldn't buy a Q, but we don't all have the same goals with taking images.

Pentax:
- Q, small form MILC with good marketperformance in Japan (or east)
- K-mount, not too good in MILC (still on the list as #20)
- K-mount, some performance for K-5 (IIs) in the list for aps-c, but it needs a cheaper entry-level camera.
- K-mount, no presence in the FF-section, that is around 7 % off the total dslr-market.
- 645D, making a good impression in a niche.

So there is still a lot off work to do, but that can all be done working with the three mounts that Pentax currently supports. Growing to a total marketshare off 10 % and making a profit is not something that would be impossible to achieve over the coming years.

RonHendriks1966 · 05-17-2013, 04:06 PM

Originally posted by Aristophanes

Amazon's user reviews for the Q series in total is almost nil, as in 20 feedback buyers. The newer Q10 has zero reviews. Nikon's J series has hundreds and the Sony RX100 ell over 300 reviews.

Don't be fooled by this. Overhere company's are paying people to write user reviews on internetsites to get a good market presence and creating a sence off market acceptance with satisfied customers.

rawr · 05-17-2013, 04:37 PM

Originally posted by Aristophanes

Q is under-spec by a significant amount compared to the competition.

It actually does almost the same on DxOMark even compared to similarly sized high-end compacts like the Powershot S110 or the Fujifilm X10, even though it has the smallest sensor of the three.

Comparing it to things like the CX Nikons or the RX100 with sensors 4 times bigger is silly.

Attached Images

**Aristophanes** · 05-17-2013, 05:06 PM

Originally posted by rawr

It actually does almost the same on DxOMark even compared to similarly sized high-end compacts like the Powershot S110 or the Fujifilm X10, even though it has the smallest sensor of the three.

Comparing it to things like the CX Nikons or the RX100 with sensors 4 times bigger is silly.

But the CX Nikon's and the RX100 have price parity and are no larger in form factor. They bring way more IQ to the party. 4x bigger sensor, similar price point, almost identical form factor. And the Nikon 1 series has scorching AF. You're making my case.

**monochrome** · 05-17-2013, 05:10 PM

Originally posted by Aristophanes

People buy the most spec for the price.

That sounds logical, but do we really know it is true? All people? Some people? Smart people? Hipster people?

Which people do that - people who read Forums and camera websites? People who are low-information buyers? People at Target? People who buy at FS camera stores? Brand-buyers? Show us some real information, not just your quasi-pedantic, official-sounding statements.

I still haven't heard whether Pentax can re-engineer the Q-mount and make new lenses for a 1" sensor.

rawr · 05-17-2013, 05:35 PM

Originally posted by Aristophanes

They bring way more IQ to the party. 4x bigger sensor, similar price point, almost identical form factor.

You forget that bigger sensor and shallower DOF aren't always desirable in compacts. Snapshooting with larger sensors can be a pain.

My keeper rate for casual snapshots - and macros - with my RX100 is much lower than my old Fuji F200EXR, for example, or at least was until I figured out how how to drive the RX100 properly. Lots of DOF in a compact solves many problems with lens quality, AF and user experience, and will generally be more likely to keep casual shooters happy. I think camera - and camera phone - manufacturers are aware of this.

**monochrome** · 05-17-2013, 05:56 PM

Originally posted by rawr

You forget that bigger sensor and shallower DOF aren't always desirable in compacts. Snapshooting with larger sensors can be a pain.

My keeper rate for casual snapshots - and macros - with my RX100 is much lower than my old Fuji F200EXR, for example, or at least was until I figured out how how to drive the RX100 properly. Lots of DOF in a compact solves many problems with lens quality, AF and user experience, and will generally be more likely to keep casual shooters happy. I think camera - and camera phone - manufacturers are aware of this.

He's made up his mind. And he has opinions to prove it.

audiobomber · 05-17-2013, 06:02 PM

Originally posted by Aristophanes

But the CX Nikon's and the RX100 have price parity and are no larger in form factor.

I bought a Q kit and K-01 kit for the same price as an RX-100.

IchabodCrane · 05-17-2013, 06:28 PM

Originally posted by audiobomber

I bought a Q kit and K-01 kit for the same price as an RX-100.

Those Pentax cameras aren't current. I'm sure you can find some fire sale price on a discontinued J1, too.

ElJamoquio · 05-17-2013, 06:28 PM

Originally posted by rawr

Comparing it to things like the CX Nikons or the RX100 with sensors 4 times bigger is silly.

Comparing two cameras with similar costs and similar sizes is silly?

ElJamoquio · 05-17-2013, 06:30 PM

Originally posted by rawr

You forget that bigger sensor and shallower DOF aren't always desirable in compacts. Snapshooting with larger sensors can be a pain.

My keeper rate for casual snapshots - and macros - with my RX100 is much lower than my old Fuji F200EXR, for example, or at least was until I figured out how how to drive the RX100 properly. Lots of DOF in a compact solves many problems with lens quality, AF and user experience, and will generally be more likely to keep casual shooters happy. I think camera - and camera phone - manufacturers are aware of this.

So force it to small apertures in the 'green' mode...

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
BCN Mirrorless camera sales ranking for 2012	Christine Tham	Canon, Nikon, Sony, and Other Camera Brands	6	01-04-2013 12:05 AM
2012 Camera Sales in Japan	JPT	Photographic Industry and Professionals	12	01-01-2013 06:14 AM
Pentax Q sales in Japan	Paul Ewins	Pentax Q	11	11-03-2012 05:34 AM
Quotes from a Sales Rep of Pentax (Japan)	leonsroar	Pentax News and Rumors	45	05-26-2012 04:04 AM
Sales of the K-x in Japan pushed back 17 days	creampuff	Pentax News and Rumors	13	10-11-2009 04:20 PM

05-17-2013, 02:58 PM	#256
ElJamoquio Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2011 Posts: 4,873	Originally posted by Pål Jensen Surely you are joking.... Nope. The native-q lenses are great, don't get me wrong. When I put on the 300mm or so I have better luck cropping. I've only done a tiny amount of macro stuff.

05-17-2013, 02:59 PM	#257
monochrome Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: Working From Home Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 26,276	Originally posted by Pål Jensen The examples above is more than good enough for A3+ prints. If you click on the images they'll get significantly larger than A3 on your monitor. You can hang these on your wall with no problems. Pity they don't have more DOF though... But - see - that doesn't matter - because, like, the 1" sensor image is EVEN BETTER than good-enough-to-hang-on-your-wall - and, like, that's all people care about, and like, DOF!!. Pentax is doomed. Again. Damn.

05-17-2013, 03:13 PM	#258
IchabodCrane Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2012 Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 1,728	Originally posted by Pål Jensen The Q have about the same share of the mirrorless market as the total share of FF (Nikon + Canon and Sony) have of the DSLR market. That should put things into perspective. Have 6% share of the market with one model is nothing short of remarkable... Here's some more perspective.... it's been claimed on this forum that the DSLR market is four to five times the size of the MILC market.

05-17-2013, 03:54 PM	#259
Aristophanes Site Supporter Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: Rankin Inlet, Nunavut Photos: Albums Posts: 3,948	Originally posted by Kunzite More than adequate for web (and small prints). I guess 90% of all the photos taken are printed A3+ or larger... Does that matter? People buy the most spec for the price. Q is under-spec by a significant amount compared to the competition. CX sensors in the same form factor will beat it into the ground. It's not even analogous to m43 vs APS, either. The Q sensor is that much smaller than what the competition is doing. And the reviews.....mostly suck, with the small sensor being the small point. It's like a minivan that only seats 4; or a truck that cannot tow due to too small an engine. It's a sensor that cannot do what the competition can in low light, which is a far more important criteria than a little more telecentricity. The Q original has ben on a fire sale, which is NOT a good sign. Amazon's user reviews for the Q series in total is almost nil, as in 20 feedback buyers. The newer Q10 has zero reviews. Nikon's J series has hundreds and the Sony RX100 ell over 300 reviews. Again, a later release than the Q system. A quick survey of Canadian retailers show that only about half the main players carry the line. I don't see sales, not from North American outlets. It's almost invisible. Flickr doesn't even track the Q in Camera Finder because it has no statistical volume. The Nikon 1 Series already has 2 million uploads and is a year younger than the Q (the D90 tops out at 104 million uploads for comparison). And you think the competition is going to stand still? They're going to drop their CX prices (the J1 is already selling more units a a lower price than the Q). A very basic, retail level market analysis says the Q is not a player in the consumer mindset. 5.8% in Japan's flaky MILC market and I bet 0.1% in North America's equivalent. I give the system maybe 2 years. Regardless, Pentax will have no choice but to offer a larger sensor compact either MILC or compact before then.

05-17-2013, 04:01 PM	#260
RonHendriks1966 Banned Join Date: Jan 2009 Photos: Gallery Posts: 9,675	Originally posted by Pål Jensen Have 6% share of the market with one model is nothing short of remarkable... I think that no matter how someone feels about the Q, this is a good achievement. It would be great if Pentax also had a dslr camera model that would get this same marketshare in the dslr-section. People buy for their own reasons. I wouldn't buy a Q, but we don't all have the same goals with taking images. Pentax: - Q, small form MILC with good marketperformance in Japan (or east) - K-mount, not too good in MILC (still on the list as #20) - K-mount, some performance for K-5 (IIs) in the list for aps-c, but it needs a cheaper entry-level camera. - K-mount, no presence in the FF-section, that is around 7 % off the total dslr-market. - 645D, making a good impression in a niche. So there is still a lot off work to do, but that can all be done working with the three mounts that Pentax currently supports. Growing to a total marketshare off 10 % and making a profit is not something that would be impossible to achieve over the coming years.

05-17-2013, 04:06 PM	#261
RonHendriks1966 Banned Join Date: Jan 2009 Photos: Gallery Posts: 9,675	Originally posted by Aristophanes Amazon's user reviews for the Q series in total is almost nil, as in 20 feedback buyers. The newer Q10 has zero reviews. Nikon's J series has hundreds and the Sony RX100 ell over 300 reviews. Don't be fooled by this. Overhere company's are paying people to write user reviews on internetsites to get a good market presence and creating a sence off market acceptance with satisfied customers.

05-17-2013, 04:37 PM	#262
rawr Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2009 Posts: 11,913	Originally posted by Aristophanes Q is under-spec by a significant amount compared to the competition. It actually does almost the same on DxOMark even compared to similarly sized high-end compacts like the Powershot S110 or the Fujifilm X10, even though it has the smallest sensor of the three. Comparing it to things like the CX Nikons or the RX100 with sensors 4 times bigger is silly. Attached Images

05-17-2013, 05:06 PM	#263
Aristophanes Site Supporter Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: Rankin Inlet, Nunavut Photos: Albums Posts: 3,948	Originally posted by rawr It actually does almost the same on DxOMark even compared to similarly sized high-end compacts like the Powershot S110 or the Fujifilm X10, even though it has the smallest sensor of the three. Comparing it to things like the CX Nikons or the RX100 with sensors 4 times bigger is silly. But the CX Nikon's and the RX100 have price parity and are no larger in form factor. They bring way more IQ to the party. 4x bigger sensor, similar price point, almost identical form factor. And the Nikon 1 series has scorching AF. You're making my case.

05-17-2013, 05:10 PM	#264
monochrome Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: Working From Home Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 26,276	Originally posted by Aristophanes People buy the most spec for the price. That sounds logical, but do we really know it is true? All people? Some people? Smart people? Hipster people? Which people do that - people who read Forums and camera websites? People who are low-information buyers? People at Target? People who buy at FS camera stores? Brand-buyers? Show us some real information, not just your quasi-pedantic, official-sounding statements. I still haven't heard whether Pentax can re-engineer the Q-mount and make new lenses for a 1" sensor.

05-17-2013, 05:35 PM	#265
rawr Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2009 Posts: 11,913	Originally posted by Aristophanes They bring way more IQ to the party. 4x bigger sensor, similar price point, almost identical form factor. You forget that bigger sensor and shallower DOF aren't always desirable in compacts. Snapshooting with larger sensors can be a pain. My keeper rate for casual snapshots - and macros - with my RX100 is much lower than my old Fuji F200EXR, for example, or at least was until I figured out how how to drive the RX100 properly. Lots of DOF in a compact solves many problems with lens quality, AF and user experience, and will generally be more likely to keep casual shooters happy. I think camera - and camera phone - manufacturers are aware of this.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

05-17-2013, 05:56 PM	#266
monochrome Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: Working From Home Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 26,276	Originally posted by rawr You forget that bigger sensor and shallower DOF aren't always desirable in compacts. Snapshooting with larger sensors can be a pain. My keeper rate for casual snapshots - and macros - with my RX100 is much lower than my old Fuji F200EXR, for example, or at least was until I figured out how how to drive the RX100 properly. Lots of DOF in a compact solves many problems with lens quality, AF and user experience, and will generally be more likely to keep casual shooters happy. I think camera - and camera phone - manufacturers are aware of this. He's made up his mind. And he has opinions to prove it.

05-17-2013, 06:02 PM	#267
audiobomber Veteran Member Join Date: May 2008 Location: Sudbury, Ontario Photos: Albums Posts: 6,806	Originally posted by Aristophanes But the CX Nikon's and the RX100 have price parity and are no larger in form factor. I bought a Q kit and K-01 kit for the same price as an RX-100.

05-17-2013, 06:28 PM	#268
IchabodCrane Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2012 Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 1,728	Originally posted by audiobomber I bought a Q kit and K-01 kit for the same price as an RX-100. Those Pentax cameras aren't current. I'm sure you can find some fire sale price on a discontinued J1, too.

05-17-2013, 06:28 PM	#269
ElJamoquio Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2011 Posts: 4,873	Originally posted by rawr Comparing it to things like the CX Nikons or the RX100 with sensors 4 times bigger is silly. Comparing two cameras with similar costs and similar sizes is silly?

05-17-2013, 06:30 PM	#270
ElJamoquio Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2011 Posts: 4,873	Originally posted by rawr You forget that bigger sensor and shallower DOF aren't always desirable in compacts. Snapshooting with larger sensors can be a pain. My keeper rate for casual snapshots - and macros - with my RX100 is much lower than my old Fuji F200EXR, for example, or at least was until I figured out how how to drive the RX100 properly. Lots of DOF in a compact solves many problems with lens quality, AF and user experience, and will generally be more likely to keep casual shooters happy. I think camera - and camera phone - manufacturers are aware of this. So force it to small apertures in the 'green' mode...